##Leap My code: here
-
Responder #1 (here) - Same approach I took, just with the full comparison syntax.
-
Responder #2 (here) - This was my initial approach. Neet implementation.
-
Responder #3 (here) - Same approach as the poster above, interesting that a lot of people went this way.
-
Responder #4 (here) - Interesting mix of using both modulo and comparison.
-
Responder #5 (here) - I liked that he chose to space his modulo approach, makes it a bit more readable.
##Hamming My code: here
-
Responder #1 (here) - Same approach I took. Nice to know that all you need is throw in javascript, not throw Error.
-
Responder #2 (here) - Neerly identical to my post, I'm curious as to why you do or do not need braces after an if statement.
-
Responder #3 (here) - Interesting approach of doing everything in the same comparison statement.
-
Responder #4 (here) - Again, nearly the same approach everybody has taken so far. He threw the error in a different way. Seems like there is a lot of flexibility in throwing errors.
-
Responder #5 (here) - Interesting choice of ternary operator, as well as the ++ syntax over +=
##RNA Transcription he functions for translating, which looks good. On the other hand, the responder creates a new object (new_obj) that doesn't need to be independently created. The responder also does not need a separate function (splitStrandToArray()) for split/parse of a string when it could easily be handled in a single line.
-
My code: here
-
Responder #1 (here) - I like his approach, breaking out the pairs into an object fits quite nicely.
-
Responder #2 (here) - Similar approach to above, however their line 7 seems needless and drawn out.
-
Responder #3 (here) - Pretty much identical to responder 1, great approach.
-
Responder #4 (here) - Same approach I used, just with the full if else syntax.
-
Responder #5 (here) - Interesting choice, using an array for the final output. This shows why a different collection type can change your code.